order sheet armed forces tribunal, regional bench, lucknow court …aftlko.up.nic.in/c1 daily...

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET

ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, LUCKNOW

Court No. 1

O.A. No. 265 of 2016

Ninua Ram Applicant

By Legal Practitioner for Applicant

Versus

Union of India & Others Respondents

By Legal Practitioner for Respondents

Notes of the

Registry

Orders of the Tribunal

01.12.2016

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abdul Mateen, Member (J)

Hon’ble Lt Gen Gyan Bhushan, Member (A)

The case was listed for hearing on 30.11.2016 and after hearing

learned counsel for the parties, judgment was reserved.

While dictating the judgment, it was found that there are certain

mistakes in the date mentioned in the Original Application which

requires clarification.

Accordingly, we direct that the case be listed for hearing again on

08.12.2016 before Court concerned.

(Lt Gen Gyan Bhushan) (Justice Abdul Mateen)

Member (A) Member (J) SB

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

M.A. No. 2611 of 2016 Inre T.A. No. 1492 of 2016

Union of India & Others Applicants

By Legal Practitioner for Applicants

Versus

Harendra Singh Respondent

By Legal Practitioner for Respondent

Notes of the

Registry


30.11.2016



Present : Shri Amit Jaiswal, learned counsel for the applicants and

none for the respondent.

M.A. No. 2611 of 2016

This is an application for compliance of judgment. No further

order is required to be passed on this application.

Consign to records.



Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

O.A. No. 258 of 2016

Smt. Asha Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


30.11.2016



Present : Shri Shailendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the

applicant and Shri Ramesh Chandra Shukla, learned counsel for the

respondents.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant on this Original

Application which has been preferred by the applicant for grant of

family pension who happens to be widow of army person late Santosh

Kumar Singh. No doubt, husband of the applicant was deserter and had

died in a road accident but question arises as to whether the applicant is

entitled for grant of family pension or not.

We feel that it is a fit case for adjudication. Accordingly, we admit

this Original Application.

Learned counsel for the respondents prays for and is granted four

weeks‟ time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be

filed by learned counsel for the applicant within two weeks, thereafter.

List this case for orders on 27.03.2017 before court concerned

having jurisdiction as per roster of that day.



Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

DY No. 2005 of 2016 with M.A. No. 2102 of 2016 & M.A. No. 2201 of 2016

Inre O.A. No. Nil of 2016

Jitendra Kumar Applicant


Versus


By Legal Practitioner for Respondents Notes of the

Registry


30.11.2016



Present : Shri Alok Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and

Dr. Gyan Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.

Learned counsel for the applicant states that amendment

application which he intends to file is ready and he will be filing the

same in the Registry during the course of day.





Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

EX.A. No. 43 of 2016 with M.A. No. 1752 of 2016 & M.A. No. 2217 of 2016

Inre O.A. No. 423 of 2012

Ajay Kumar Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of

the

Registry


30.11.2016



Present : Shri P.K. Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and

Dr. Gyan Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.

M.A. No. 2217 of 2016

This application has been filed by the respondents with respect to

compliance of the judgment under execution annexing the copy of

requisite PPO.

Learned counsel for the applicant states that judgment under

execution has been fully complied with and this Execution Application

be dismissed.

Accordingly, this Execution Application has been rendered

infructuous and is hereby dismissed.



Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

EX.A. No. 66 of 2016 Inre O.A. No. 286 of 2014

Chiman Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of

the

Registry


30.11.2016



Present : Shri Rohit Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and

Shri D.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the respondents has moved an application

alongwith affidavit for compliance of judgment and order under

execution.

Since in compliance of judgment under execution, necessary PPO

has been issued, this Execution Application has been rendered

infructuous.

Accordingly, this Execution Application is dismissed.


Member (A) Member (J) Ukt

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1


Greesh Kumar Applicant


Versus



Notes of

the

Registry


30.11.2016



Present : Shri K.K. Singh Bisht, learned counsel for the applicant

and Shri Namit Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents.

Learned counsel for the respondents, on the basis of instructions,

informs that Re-survey Medical Board of the applicant is going on,

hence PPO has not been issued.

On the contrary, learned counsel for the applicant submits that Re-

survey Medical Board of the applicant is going on and for that the

applicant has been sent to Agra, Bareilly, Command Hospital, Lucknow

and at present he is at Agra undergoing Re-survey Medical Board.

Since the matter is in progress, we expect that full compliance of

the judgment under execution will be made within two weeks.





Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

EX.A. No. 98 of 2016 In Ref Inre O.A. No. 177 of 2014

Nagendra Kumar Pandey Applicant


Versus



Notes of

the

Registry


30.11.2016




and Mrs. Deepti Prasad Bajpai, learned counsel for the respondents.

Learned counsel for the respondents, on the basis of instructions,

informs that in pursuance to judgment and order under execution, PPO

has already been issued on 29.11.2016 and she will supply copy of the

PPO to learned counsel for the applicant during the course of day.





Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

EX.A. No. 140 of 2016 with M.A. No. 2614 of 2016 Inre T.A. No. 36 of 2011

Vinod Kumar Applicant


Versus



Notes of

the

Registry


30.11.2016




and Shri D.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.

On call of the case, learned counsel for the applicant informs that

since the applicant, Vinod Kumar had died and PPO has been issued in

his name, he has informed the authority concerned that Vinod Kumar

had died and his name be substituted by Smt. Geeta, wife of the

applicant.

Since the applicant, Vinod Kumar has expired, as informed by

learned counsel for the applicant, It is expected that authorities shall

issue fresh PPO in the name of Geeta Wife of the applicant within four

weeks.





Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

M.A. No. 602 of 2014

Rejendra Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of

the

Registry


30.11.2016



Present : None for the applicant and Dr. Shailendra Sharma Atal,

learned counsel for the respondents.

Case called out. No one appears for the applicant. Since this case

was filed by Shri R Chaubey, who later on had expired, as such notices

were issued to the applicant. The matter pertains to the year 2014. On

several times, notices have been issued to the applicant but have been

received back un-served.

Latest report states that “Praptkarta yaha nahi rahata hai, atah

preshak ko vapas”.

Accordingly, Original Application is dismissed for non

prosecution.



Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

M.A. No. 690 of 2016 with M.A. No. 1768 of 2016 & M.A. No. 2084 of 2016

Amar Pal Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of

the

Registry


30.11.2016



Present : Shri R. Chandra, learned counsel for the applicant and

Shri R.K.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the respondents.

On call of the case, learned counsel for the applicant states that

amendment application is ready and he will be filing the same in the

Registry during the course of day.

Learned counsel for the respondents may file objection, if any,

within four weeks.





Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

M.A. No. 1522 of 2016

Shiwu Prasad Bari Applicant


Versus



Notes of

the

Registry


30.11.2016



Present : Mohd Shariq Khan, holding brief of Shri S.G. Singh,

learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Anurag Mishra, learned

counsel for the respondents.

Learned counsel for the respondents states that objection to the

application for condonation of delay is ready and he will be filing the

same in the Registry within two days.

Replication, if any, may be filed by learned counsel for the

applicant within two weeks, thereafter.

List this case for admission on 09.03.2017 before court concerned




Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

M.A.No. 2194 of 2016

In Re: O.A. No. 212 of 2016

Smt. Vinod Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


30.11.2016



Present: Shri Vishnu Dev Shukla, learned counsel for the

applicant and Dr. Shailendra Sharma Atal, learned counsel for the

respondents alongwith Maj Salen Xaxa, Departmental representative.

M.A.No. 2194 of 2016

This is an application for recall of an order dated 26.08.2016,

by means of which O.A.No. 212 of 2016 was dismissed for non-

prosecution. The reasons given in para 4 and 5 of the affidavit filed in

support of the application seem to be genuine.

Accordingly, the application is allowed. The order dated

26.08.2016 is hereby recalled and the O.A is restored to its original

number provided the applicant deposits a sum of Rs.500/- as costs

with the Registry of this AFT within ten days.

List this case for orders on 10.03.2017 before the appropriate

Court having jurisdiction as per roster of that date.


Member (A) Member (J)

LN/

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

O.A. No. 338 of 2015

Rohit Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


30.11.2016



Present: Shri Shailendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the

applicant and Shri Namit Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents

alongwith WO Deshraj Singh, Departmental representative.

Shri Shailendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant

prays for and is granted ten days‟ time to file rejoinder affidavit.





RS/

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

O.A. No. 101 of 2016 With M.A. No. 2439 of 2016

Smt Madhubala Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


30.11.2016



Present: Shri Diwakar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant

and Shri Sunil Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents alongwith

WO Deshraj Singh, Departmental representative.

Copy of counter affidavit has been served by Shri Sunil

Sharma, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents upon Shri

Diwakar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant today in Court.

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted one week‟s

time to file rejoinder affidavit.





LN/

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

O.A.No. 231 of 2016

Ram Vishwas Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


30.11.2016



Present: Shri A.K.Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant

and Shri Amit Jaiswal, learned counsel for the respondents alongwith

Maj Salen Xaxa, Departmental representative.

Shri Amit Jaiswal, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the

respondents prays for and is granted six weeks‟ further time to file

counter affidavit.





RS/

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

O.A.No. 265 of 2015

Ninua Ram Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


30.11.2016



Present: Shri P.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and

Ms Deepti P. Bajpai, learned counsel for the respondents alongwith


Heard Shri P.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and

Ms Deepti P. Bajpai, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents

alongwith Maj Salen Xaxa, Departmental representative at length and

gone through the record.

Arguments concluded. Judgment reserved.



LN/

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

O.A. No. 42 of 2016

Girish Chandra Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


30.11.2016



Present: Shri Veer Raghav Chaube, learned counsel for the

applicant and Dr Shailendra Sharma Atal, learned counsel for the


Heard Shri Veer Raghav Chaube, learned counsel for the

applicant on this O.A, which was admitted on 23.02.2016.

By means of this O.A, the applicant has prayed for grant of

disability pension. Although it has been pleaded that the applicant had

preferred no appeal, but it comes out from Annexure-6 on record that

the applicant had preferred an appeal which was rejected in

November, 1993. The said rejection order has not been challenged in

the O.A. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he intends to

amend the prayer clause of the petition. He prays for two weeks‟ time

for the purpose. Time prayed for is granted.





LN/

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

M.A. No. 1810 of 2016 with MA 2176 & MA 2489 of 2016

(Inre: O.A. No. Nil of 2016)

Ghanshyam Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


30.11.2016



Present: Shri VR Chaubey, learned counsel for the applicant and

Ms Deepti P Bajpai, learned counsel for the respondents alongwith


Shri VR Chaubey, learned counsel for the applicant prays for

and is granted ten days‟ further time to file replication to the objection

filed by the learned counsel for the respondents to the delay

condonation application.




Member (A) Member (J) PKG/

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

O.A. No. 198 of 2013 With M.A. Nos. 774 & 1682 of 2016

and O.A. No. 196 of 2013

Vishnu Prasad Upadhiya Applicant


Versus

Chief of Army Staff & Others Respondents


Notes of the

Registry


30.11.2016



Present: Dr Shailendra Sharma Atal, learned counsel for the


Case called out. No one appeared on behalf of the applicant,

rather a person in civil dress claiming himself to be Shri Vishnu

Prasad Upadhiya appeared and stated that Shri PN Chaturvedi,

Advocate is confined to bed being unwell and prays for adjournment

of the case. Accordingly, the case is adjourned.





Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

O.A.No.159 of 2014

Krishna Nand Rai Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


30.11.2016



Present: Shri Amit Jaiswal, learned counsel for the respondents

alongwith Maj Salen Xaxa, Departmental representative.

Case called out. No one appeared for the applicant nor there is

any request to pass over or adjourn the case.. On the last date also,

none had appeared for the applicant. However, in the interest of

justice, as a last opportunity, the case is adjourned.





Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

T.A.24 of 2016

Munshi Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


30.11.2016



Present: Ms Amrita Chakraborty, learned counsel for the


Case called out. No one appeared for the applicant.

This Transfer Application has been received by transfer from

Hon‟ble the High Court, Allahabad and the case has been registered in

the Tribunal. Notices were duly issued to the applicant, but as per

office report dated 20.10.2016, the notices sent to the applicant have

been delivered on 26.9.2016, as such the service shall be deemed to be

sufficient.

Since no one appeared for the applicant, T.A.No. 24 of 2016 is

dismissed for non-prosecution.



Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

T.A.No.1365 of 2010

Manoj Kumar Bhatt Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


30.11.2016



Present: Shri DC Lohumi, learned counsel for the applicant and

Dr Shesh Narain Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents


As prayed by Shri DC Lohumi, learned counsel for the applicant,

list this case for orders on 24.03.2017 before the appropriate Court

having jurisdiction as per roster of that date.



Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

T.A.No.20 of 2016

Achal Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


30.11.2016



Present: Shri Rajneesh Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the

applicant and Shri VPS Vats, learned counsel for the respondents


Shri Rajneesh Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the applicant

prays for adjournment of the case, so as to enable him to prepare the

brief.

List this case for admission on 20.03.2017 before the appropriate




Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

O.A. No. 154 of 2012

Lalan Pandey Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


29.11.2016



Present: Shri Mohit Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and

Shri Namit Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents alongwith

Maj Salen Xaxa, Departmental representative and ShriVinay Shankar,

learned counsel for respondent No. 4.

Shri Vinay Shankar, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 files

affidavit of one Shri Amit Srivastava, Senior Branch Manager, Bank

of Baroda, Chaure Bazar Branch, District Faizabad, indicating therein

that the amount of Rs.60,437/- recovered from the monthly pension of

the applicant will be cleared off. In para 4 of the said affidavit, it has

been specifically averred that the said amount will be paid to the

applicant alongwith the pension for the month of November, 2016.

Shri Amit Srivastava, Senior Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda,

Chaure Bazar Branch, District Faizabad, who is present in Court, also

makes a statement to that effect.

In view of above, the controversy raised in this O.A seems to

have been set at rest and there remains nothing to be adjudicated upon.

The O.A has lost its efficacy and it having been rendered infructuous

is hereby dismissed.



LN/

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

O.A. No. 220 of 2014

Narayan Datt Joshi Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


29.11.2016



Present: Shri Namit Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents


On call of the case, Shri V.P.Pandey, Advocate appears and states

that Shri K.K.S.Bisht, learned counsel for the applicant has not come

to the Court; as such he prays for adjournment of the case.

Accordingly, the case is adjourned.





LN/

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1


Smt Rajni Verma Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


29.11.2016



Present: Shri Sunil Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents


On call of the case, it has been informed by the members of the

Bar that Shri P.N.Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicant is

suffering from Chikangunya and has not come to the Court. Prayer

has been made for adjournment of the case. Accordingly, the case is

adjourned.





LN/

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

T.A. No. 686 of 2010 With M.A. No. 2485 of 2016

Smt Kumud Mishra Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


29.11.2016



Present: Maj RD Singh (Retd), learned counsel for the applicant

and Mrs Deepti P Bajpai, learned counsel for the respondents


Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged.

Accordingly, list this case for hearing 23.03.2017 before the

appropriate Court having jurisdiction as per roster of that date.



LN/

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

T.A. No. 1093 of 2010

Smt Prasandi Devi Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


29.11.2016



Present: Shri Dharmendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the

applicant and Shri Adesh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the


Shri Adesh Kumar Gupta, learned Standing Counsel appearing

for the respondents prays for and is granted, as a matter of last

opportunity, two weeks and no more time to file objection to the

amendment application.





LN/

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

T.A. No. 1317 of 2010

Ranbir Singh (Deceased) Smt Kusuma Devi Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


29.11.2016







prays for and is granted, as a matter of last opportunity, three weeks

and no more time to file Vakalatnama on behalf of the legal heirs of

deceased Rambir Singh.





LN/

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

T.A. No. 1093 of 2010

Smt Suman Devi Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


29.11.2016



Present: Shri PK Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and Dr

Shailendra Sharma Atal, learned counsel for the respondents


Dr. Shailendra Sharma Atal, learned counsel for the respondents

prays for and is granted three weeks‟ further time to place on record

the specific opinion by means of which the appellate committee has

come to the conclusion that the disease „HIV with disseminated

Tuberculosis‟ by which the husband of the applicant was suffering,

was due to CSWS.





LN/

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

O.A. No. 187 of 2015

Ram Gopal Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


29.11.2016



Present: Shri Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and

Mrs Deepti P Bajpai, learned counsel for the respondents alongwith


As prayed, list this case for hearing 24.03.2017 before the




RS/

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

O.A. No. 337 of 2015 With M.A. No.s 957 & 1024 of 2016

Rajendra Prasad Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


29.11.2016



Present: Shri AK Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Dr


alongwith Wg Cdr Sardul Singh, Departmental representative.





RS/

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

O.A. No. 34 of 2016

Sabhajit Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


29.11.2016




applicant and Mrs. Deepti P. Bajpai, learned counsel for the






RS/

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

T.A. No. 24 of 2012

Yogendra Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


29.11.2016



Present: Shri Namit Sharma, learned counsel for the






RS/

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

M.A. No. 2582 of 2016 Inre O.A. No. Nil 2016

Prem Veer Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


29.11.2016



Memo of appearance filed by Shri Adesh Kumar Gupta on behalf

of respondents is taken on record. Let his name be shown as counsel for

the respondents, when the case is listed next.

Present : None for the applicant and Shri Adesh Kumar Gupta,


Case called out. Neither the applicant nor his counsel is present

nor is there any request to pass over the case. However, in the interest

of justice, the case is adjourned.





Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

M.A. No. 2588 of 2016 Inre O.A. No. Nil 2016

Smt. Poonam Mishra Applicant


Versus



Registry


29.11.2016



Memo of appearance filed by Mohd. Zafar Khan on behalf of

respondents is taken on record. Let his name be shown as counsel for


Present : Shri Gyanendra Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the

applicant and Mohd. Zafar Khan, learned counsel for the respondents.

M.A. No. 2588 of 2016

This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the

Original Application which relates to grant of disability pension to the

applicant who happens to be wife of army person.

As per office report, there is delay of 06 years, 03 months & 22

days in filing the original application. Copy of this application has been

served on learned counsel for the respondents, today in the Court.


weeks‟ time to file objection against the application for condonation of

delay.





Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

EX.A. No. 233 of 2016 Inre T.A. No. 40 of 2012

Bhoop Chand (deceased) through LR Sundari Devi & Another Applicants


Versus



Registry


29.11.2016



Memo of appearance filed by Shri Asheesh Agnihotri on behalf of



Present : Shri V.P. Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and

Shri Asheesh Agnihotri, learned counsel for the respondents.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant on this Execution

Application which has been filed by the applicant for non compliance

of judgment and order dated 02.12.2014 passed in T.A. No. 40 of 2012.

Copy of this execution application has been served upon learned

counsel for the respondents on 25.11.2016.


weeks‟ time to seek instructions from the authority concerned as to why

aforesaid judgment has not been complied with and file compliance

report.





Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

M.A. No. 2543 of 2016 Inre O.A. No. 2 of 2016

Smt. Rakesh Devi Applicant


Versus



Notes of

the

Registry


29.11.2016



Memo of appearance filed by Shri Namit Sharma on behalf of



Present : Shri M.R. Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant and

Shri Namit Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents.

M.A. No. 2543 of 2016

This is an application for recall of order dated 08.11.2016 by

means of which O.A. No 2 of 2016 was dismissed for non prosecution.

The reasons given in para 3 of affidavit filed in support of recall

application seems to be genuine. Accordingly, order dated 08.11.2016

is hereby recalled subject to payment of Rs. 500/- before Registrar,

Armed Forces Tribunbal, Regional Bench, Lucknow within 10 days. On

production of receipt of deposit, the case shall be restored to its original

number.





Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

M.A. No. 2592 of 2016 with M.A. No. 2593 of 2016 Inre O.A. No. 339 of 2015

Union of India & Others Applicants


Versus

Rajendra Singh Respondent

By Legal Practitioner for Respondent

Notes of

the

Registry


29.11.2016



Present : Shri Namit Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants

and none for the respondent.

M.A. No. 2592 of 2016

This is an application for condonation of delay in moving the

application under section 31(2) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007

for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated

23.08.2016 passed by this Court in O.A. No. 339 of 2015.

As per stamp reporter‟s report, there is delay of 02 months in filing

the application for leave to appeal. Section 31 (2) of the Armed Forces

Tribunal Act 2007 provides that the application for leave to appeal shall

be made for approaching Hon‟ble Supreme Court within a period of 30

days beginning with the date of decision of the Tribunal. Apart from it,

we have also gone through the grounds and reasons indicated in the

affidavit filed in support of the application. In our considered opinion,

the grounds urged in support of the prayer for condoning the delay are

general in nature and do not appear to be germane in view of the law

laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Office of the Chief Post

Master General and others vs Living Media India Ltd and another

reported in 2012 STPL (LE) 46200 SC in which the Hon‟ble Supreme

Court has observed as under:

“Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an

anticipated benefit for government departments” and since “the claim on

account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of

making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies

being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody

including the Government.”

The Hon‟ble Supreme Court further observed as under :

“Since the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the

issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation ……..They

cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the

Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with court

proceedings”.

In view of the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the

aforesaid case, the application for condonation of delay cannot be

entertained and it is hereby rejected.

M.A. No 2593 of 2016

This is an application under section 31 (1) of the Armed Forces

Tribunal Act 2007 for grant of leave to appeal, having been moved by

the applicant beyond the period of 30 days. Since the application for

condonation of delay in moving this application has been rejected, in

consequence thereof, this application is also liable to be rejected.

Even otherwise also, we do not find any point of law of general

public importance involved in the decision so as to grant leave to

appeal. Accordingly, this application is also rejected.



Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


O.A. No. 269 of 2016

Rajendra Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of

the

Registry


29.11.2016



Present : Shri Veer Raghav Chaubey, learned counsel for the

applicant and Shri Amit Jaiswal, learned counsel for the respondents.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant with respect to admission

of this O.A. which has been preferred by the applicant with the prayer

that applicant‟s disability pension approved to 30%, be rounded of to

50% in view of law laid down by Hon‟ble The Apex Court in the case

of Union of India and Ors vs. Ram Avtar & ors Civil Appeal No

418 of 2012 decided on 10th

December 2014. Although he made the

request for rounding of his disability pension but the same has been

rejected by the respondents on 29.07.2016. By means of this O.A.,

applicant has prayed for quashing of rejection order dated 29.07.2016.

In view of the law laid down by Hon‟ble The Apex Court, we feel

that it is a fit case for adjudication. Accordingly, we admit the O.A.

Learned counsel for the respondents prays for and is granted six

weeks time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be





Member (A) Member (J) ukt

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1


Chiman Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of

the

Registry


29.11.2016




Shri D.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.

As prayed by learned counsel for the respondents, list this case for

orders on 30.11.2016 before court concerned having jurisdiction as per

roster of that day.



Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1


Alam Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of

the

Registry


29.11.2016





respondents.

On call of the case, learned counsel for the applicant states that he

be granted some more time to file objection with respect to issuance of

PPO by the respondents since there are not only certain discrepancies

but also respondents had asked for deleting the name of the wife of the

applicant from joint account.

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted ten days

time to bring it on record.





Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

M.A. No. 592 of 2016

Smt. Sanju Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of

the

Registry


29.11.2016



Present : Shri V.P. Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and

Shri Rajiv Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.


further time to file replication to the objection on application for

condonation of delay.





Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1


Jagat Narain Shukla Applicant


Versus



Notes of

the

Registry


29.11.2016



Present : Shri Anand Yadav holding brief of Mohd Shariq Khan,

learned counsel for the applicant and Dr. Chet Narain Singh, learned


M.A. No. 1690 of 2016

Heard learned counsel for the applicant on this application for

condonation of delay in filing the Original Application which relates to

the prayer having been made for grant of additional pension of Hony

Nb Sub and other benefits in view of law laid down by different

Benches of Armed Forces Tribunal and also by Hon‟ble The Apex

Court.

As per office report, there is delay of 10 years and 01 month in

filing the Original Application. The reasons given in affidavit filed in

support of application for condonation of delay seem to be genuine.

Accordingly, the delay in filing Original Application is hereby

condoned. The objection raised by respondents vide M.A. No. 1902 of

2016 is hereby rejected. Let the case be registered as O.A.





Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

M.A. No. 1691 of 2016 with M.A. No. 2609 of 2016

Keshu Prasad Dubey Applicant


Versus



Notes of

the

Registry


29.11.2016



Present : Shri Anand Yadav, holding brief of Mohd Shariq Khan,

learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Ashish Kumar Singh, learned


M.A. No. 1691 of 2016

Heard learned counsel for the applicant on this application for

condonation of delay in filing the Original Application which relates to

the prayer having been made for grant of additional pension of Hony

Nb Sub and other consequential benefits in view of law laid down by

different Benches of Armed Forces Tribunal and also by Hon‟ble The

Apex Court.

As per office report there is delay of 10 years and 01 month in

filing the Original Application. The reasons given in affidavit filed in

support of application for condonation of delay seem to be genuine.

Accordingly, the delay in filing Original Application is hereby

condoned. The objection raised by respondents vide M.A. No. 2609 of

2016 is hereby rejected. Let the case be registered as O.A.





Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1


Abhay Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of

the

Registry


29.11.2016



Present : None for the applicant and Shri A.K. Sahu, learned


There is an application for adjournment of the case moved by Shri

K.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant since he is out of station.






Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

M.A. No. 2106 of 2016 with MA 2490/16

(Inre: O.A.No. Nil of 2016)

Harinder Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


29.11.2016




applicant and MS Deepti P Bajpai, learned counsel for the respondents


M.A.No.2106 of 2016


Original Application which relates to the prayer having been made for

quashing the order dated 8th

August 2003 by means of which the

disability pension which was being granted to the applicant @ 100%,

was reviewed by the Review Medical Board and his disease having

been found cured subsequently, it was reassessed at less than 20% for

life from 11th

May 2001. Against the said action of the respondents,

the applicant preferred a petition before the respondents with respect

to which respondent no.4 vide letter dated 27.11.2009 informed the

applicant that the said petition dated 11.11.2009 was rejected by the

PCDA (P), Allahabad on the ground that his disability was assessed at

less than 20% from 11.5.2001. Thereafter, the applicant sat mum, but

in August 2009, when he came to know about the various decisions of

Hon‟ble the Apex Court as well as this Tribunal and that even the

Personnel of Army, whose disability is less than 20% have also been

granted disability pension, he approached this Court for grant of

disability pension by way of filing this Original Application.

It has further been submitted by Shri Shailendra Kumar Singh,

learned counsel for the applicant that it is well settled law that matters

relating to pension are recurring cause of action, therefore, the delay

in filing this O.A. is liable to be condoned.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone

through the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the

application for condonation of delay. The reasons for delay given

therein, seem to be genuine.

Accordingly, the application is allowed and the delay, which as

per office report is of 12 years 07 months and 05 days, is hereby

condoned. The objection (MA No.2490 of 2016) filed by the

respondent is rejected.

Let the Original Application be registered.

List this case for admission on 21.03.2017 before the appropriate




Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

M.A. No. 2181 of 2016


Surendra Yadav Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


29.11.2016






Shri Namit Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents prays

for and is granted three weeks‟ further time to file objection to the

application for condonation of delay.





Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

M.A. No. 2193 of 2016

(Inre: T.A. No. 10 of 2016)

Yogendra Prasad Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


29.11.2016



Present: Shri Rajiv Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents


Case called out. No one appeared for the applicant nor there is

any request to pass over or adjourn the case nor the documents show

that the cost has been deposited.

However, in the interest of justice, instead of dismissing the T.A.

for non prosecution, list this case for orders on 23.03.2017 before the




Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

O.A. No. 154 of 2012

Lalan Pandey Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


29.11.2016



Present: Shri Mohit Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and


Maj Salen Xaxa, Departmental representative and ShriVinay Shankar,

learned counsel for respondent No. 4.

Shri Vinay Shankar, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 files

affidavit of one Shri Amit Srivastava, Senior Branch Manager, Bank

of Baroda, Chaure Bazar Branch, District Faizabad, indicating therein

that the amount of Rs.60,437/- recovered from the monthly pension of

the applicant will be cleared off. In para 4 of the said affidavit, it has

been specifically averred that the said amount will be paid to the

applicant alongwith the pension for the month of November, 2016.

Shri Amit Srivastava, Senior Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda,

Chaure Bazar Branch, District Faizabad, who is present in Court, also

makes a statement to that effect.

In view of above, the controversy raised in this O.A seems to

have been set at rest and there remains nothing to be adjudicated upon.

The O.A has lost its efficacy and it having been rendered infructuous

is hereby dismissed.



LN/

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

O.A. No. 220 of 2014

Narayan Datt Joshi Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


29.11.2016



Present: Shri Namit Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents


On call of the case, Shri V.P.Pandey, Advocate appears and states

that Shri K.K.S.Bisht, learned counsel for the applicant has not come

to the Court; as such he prays for adjournment of the case.






LN/

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1


Smt Rajni Verma Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


29.11.2016





On call of the case, it has been informed by the members of the

Bar that Shri P.N.Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicant is

suffering from Chikangunya and has not come to the Court. Prayer

has been made for adjournment of the case. Accordingly, the case is

adjourned.





LN/

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1


Smt Kumud Mishra Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


29.11.2016



Present: Maj RD Singh (Retd), learned counsel for the applicant

and Mrs Deepti P Bajpai, learned counsel for the respondents


Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged.

Accordingly, list this case for hearing 23.03.2017 before the




LN/

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

T.A. No. 1093 of 2010

Smt Prasandi Devi Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


29.11.2016



Present: Shri Dharmendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the

applicant and Shri Adesh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the


Shri Adesh Kumar Gupta, learned Standing Counsel appearing

for the respondents prays for and is granted, as a matter of last

opportunity, two weeks and no more time to file objection to the

amendment application.





LN/

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

T.A. No. 1317 of 2010

Ranbir Singh (Deceased) Smt Kusuma Devi Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


29.11.2016







prays for and is granted, as a matter of last opportunity, three weeks

and no more time to file Vakalatnama on behalf of the legal heirs of

deceased Rambir Singh.





LN/

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

T.A. No. 1093 of 2010

Smt Suman Devi Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


29.11.2016



Present: Shri PK Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and Dr




prays for and is granted three weeks‟ further time to place on record

the specific opinion by means of which the appellate committee has

come to the conclusion that the disease „HIV with disseminated

Tuberculosis‟ by which the husband of the applicant was suffering,

was due to CSWS.





LN/

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

O.A. No. 187 of 2015

Ram Gopal Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


29.11.2016




Mrs Deepti P Bajpai, learned counsel for the respondents alongwith






RS/

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

O.A. No. 337 of 2015 With M.A. No.s 957 & 1024 of 2016



Versus



Notes of the

Registry


29.11.2016



Present: Shri AK Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Dr


alongwith Wg Cdr Sardul Singh, Departmental representative.





RS/

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

O.A. No. 34 of 2016

Sabhajit Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


29.11.2016




applicant and Mrs. Deepti P. Bajpai, learned counsel for the






RS/

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

T.A. No. 24 of 2012

Yogendra Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


29.11.2016



Present: Shri Namit Sharma, learned counsel for the






RS/

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1


Om Prakash Dubey Applicant


Versus



Registry


28.11.2016






Application which has been filed by the applicant for non compliance

of judgment and order dated 11.04.2014 passed in T.A. No. 46 of 2013.

Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that in

pursuance of the aforesaid judgment, the authorities had paid salary of

about six years to the applicant from the date of reinstatement till the

date of notional discharge.

An affidavit has been filed by Shri N. Rajasekharan, Senior

Account Officer, PAO (OR) ASC, Bangalore, today in the court

whereby it is averted that salary of the applicant from the date of

reinstatement till the date of notional discharge amounting to

Rs. 1,38,615/- has been paid in his Bank account on 23.11.2016.

Learned counsel for the applicant admits that the aforesaid

judgment has been fully complied with.

Since the judgment under execution has been fully complied with,

this Execution Application has been rendered infructuous and is hereby

dismissed.



Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

EX.A. No. 7 of 2016 with M.A. No. 2007 of 2016 & M.A. No. 2315 of 2016

Inre O.A. No. 49 of 2012

Ravinder Singh Chauhan Applicant


Versus



Notes of

the

Registry


28.11.2016



Present : Shri Bachchan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant

and Shri Amit Jaiswal, learned counsel for the respondents.

On call of the case, learned counsel for the respondents submits

that in compliance of order dated 22.02.2012, passed in O.A. No. 49 of

2012, fresh Corrigendum PPO has been issued.

Since in compliance to order under execution, fresh Corrigendum

PPO has been issued, this Execution Application has been rendered




Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1


Nand Kishore Applicant


Versus



Notes of

the

Registry


28.11.2016



Present : None for the applicant and Shri Rajiv Pandey, learned



that in compliance of judgment and order under execution, necessary

PPO has been issued. He prays for and is granted two weeks‟ time to

file compliance report.





Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1


Siya Ram Kaur Applicant


Versus



Notes of

the

Registry


28.11.2016



Present : None for the applicant and Mohd Zafar Khan, learned










Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1


Bhuneshwar Rai Applicant


Versus



Notes of

the

Registry


28.11.2016



Present : None for the applicant and Shri Ashish Saxena, learned










Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1


Jawahar Rai Applicant


Versus



Notes of

the

Registry


28.11.2016



Present : None for the applicant and Shri Amit Sharma, learned










Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1


Kalawati Devi Applicant


Versus



Notes of

the

Registry


28.11.2016













Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1


Ram Prakash Pal Applicant


Versus



Notes of

the

Registry


28.11.2016




Dr. Shailendra Sharma Atal, learned counsel for the respondents.

On call of the case, learned counsel for the respondents informs

that in pursuance of judgment and order under execution, necessary

PPO has been issued and copy of the same has been supplied to learned

counsel for the applicant today in the Court itself but he submits that

cost of Rs. 50,000/- as directed by this Court vide order dated

24.10.2016 has not been deposited.

He prays for and is granted three weeks‟ time to deposit the same.





Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1


Raksha Pal Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of

the

Registry


28.11.2016




Shri Amit Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents.

On call of the case, learned counsel for the respondents informs

that in compliance to judgment and order under execution, Govt.

sanction has been issued on 28.10.2016 and PPO will be issued within

two weeks.

It is expected that in pursuance to Govt. sanction, necessary PPO

shall be issued by the date fixed.





Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1


Talak Mahmood Applicant


Versus

CCDA (Pension) & Others Respondents


Notes of

the

Registry


28.11.2016



Present : None for the applicant and Shri Namit Sharma, learned


On call of the case, learned counsel for the respondents states that

in compliance to judgment and order under execution, PPO No.

D/0151/2016 has been issued on 28.10.2016.

Since, in execution of judgment and order, necessary PPO has

been issued, this Execution Application has been rendered infructuous

and is hereby dismissed.



Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1


Asha Ram Pal Applicant


Versus



Notes of

the

Registry


28.11.2016



Memo of appearance filed by Shri R.C. Shukla on behalf of



Present : Shri Virendra Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the

applicant and Shri R.C. Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents.


Application which has been preferred with the grievance that judgment

and order dated 17.01.2013 passed in O.A. No. 16 of 2013 has not been

complied with and the applicant has not been granted pension alongwith

arrears of Hony Naib Subedar from 01.01.2006. Copy of this execution

application has been served upon learned counsel for the respondents on

22.11.2016.

Learned counsel for the respondents to seek instructions from the

authority concerned and file reply within three weeks as to why

aforesaid judgment has not yet been complied with.





Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1


Ahibaran Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of

the

Registry


28.11.2016



Memo of appearance filed by Dr. Shailendra Sharma Atal on

behalf of respondents is taken on record. Let his name be shown as

counsel for the respondents, when the case is listed next.



respondents.



and order dated 15.12.2015 passed in O.A. No. 150 of 2013 has not

been complied with. Copy of this execution application has been served

upon learned counsel for the respondents on 22.11.2016.








Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1


Mewa Ram Applicant


Versus



Notes of

the

Registry


28.11.2016



Memo of appearance filed by Shri Rajeev Pandey on behalf of




applicant and Shri Rajeev Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.













Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1


Vinod Kumar Dwivedi Applicant


Versus



Notes of

the

Registry


28.11.2016



Memo of appearance filed by Dr. Gyan Singh on behalf of



Present : Shri V.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant and

Dr. Gyan Singh , learned counsel for the respondents.













Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1


P.K. Tewari Applicant


Versus



Notes of

the

Registry


28.11.2016



Present : Shri R. Chandra, holding brief of Shri V.A. Singh,

learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Amit Jaiswal, learned counsel

for the respondents.

On call of the case, Shri R. Chandra appears and states that Shri

V.A. Singh is out of station today and prays for adjournment of the

case.






Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1


Sant Ram Applicant


Versus



Registry


28.11.2016





On call of the case, no one appears for the applicant. However, in

the interest of justice, the case is adjourned.





Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

M.A. No. 1600 of 2016 Inre O.A. No. Nil of 2016

Raj Kumar Applicant


Versus



Registry


28.11.2016



Present : None for the applicant and Shri Sidharth Dhaon, learned








Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

M.A. No. 1624 of 2016 with M.A. No. 2481 of 2016 Inre O.A. No. Nil of 2016

Mange Ram Applicant


Versus



Notes of

the

Registry


28.11.2016



Present : None for the applicant and Shri Amit Sharma, learned








Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1


Bhaiya Lal Applicant


Versus



Notes of

the

Registry


28.11.2016



Memo of appearance filed by Shri Kaushik Chatterji on behalf of



Present : Shri O.P. Kushwaha, holding brief of Shri Ashok Kumar,

learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Kaushik Chatterji, learned


On call of the case, Shri O.P. Kushwaha states that Shri Ashok

Kumar has not come to the Court today and prays for adjournment of

the case.

While going through the record, we find that although the

applicant has filed first appeal but he has not preferred second appeal to

which Shri O.P. Kushwaha submits that he is not aware about the

second appeal.

As prayed, the case is adjourned.





Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1


Kuldeep Upadhyay Applicant


Versus



Notes of

the

Registry


28.11.2016



Present : None for the applicant and Mrs. Anju Singh, learned








Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

M.A. No. 2154 of 2016 with MA 2460 of 2016

Sahamutul Nisha Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


28.11.2016



Present: Shri Ram Dheeraj Yadav, learned counsel for the

applicant and Ms Deepti P Bajpai, learned counsel for the respondents


Copy of the objection to the delay condonation application has

been served upon Shri Ram Deeraj Yadav, learned counsel for the

applicant by Ms Deepti P Bajpai, learned counsel for the respondents

today in Court itself, to which Shri Yadav, learned counsel for the

applicant prays for and is granted two weeks‟ time to file replication to

the objection.

List this case on 30.03.2017 for orders before the appropriate




Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

M.A. No. 2565 of 2016

(Inre: TA No. 394 of 2010)

VN Saxena Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


28.11.2016



Present: Shri D.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and


M.A.No.2565 of 2016

This is an application for recall of the order dated 07.11.2016

wherein this Court had already fixed 12.12.2016 as the next date.

Accordingly, list this application on the date already fixed i.e.

12.12.2016 for orders before the appropriate Court having jurisdiction

as per roster of that date.

.



Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

O.A. No. 25 of 2016 with M.A. No. 2166 of 2016

Zahir Khan Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


28.11.2016




applicant and Shri Sunil Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents



prays that he be granted further two weeks‟ time to file rejoinder

affidavit. Time prayed for is granted.





PKG/

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

O.A. No. 54 of 2016 with M.A. Nos. 1893 & 2501 of 2016

Smt. Maya Verma & Another Applicants


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


28.11.2016



Present: Wg Cdr AK Singh (Retd), learned counsel for the

applicant and Shri DK Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents


Matter pertains to family pension.

Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged and the

petition has already been admitted on 25.02.2016

List this case for hearing on 21.03.2017 before the appropriate




PKG/

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1


Narender Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


28.11.2016



Present: Shri Virendra Singh, learned counsel for the respondents


Case called out. Shri R Chandra, learned counsel for the applicant

is not present.

Learned Standing Counsel in respect of cost having been

imposed upon them with respect to non filing of counter affidavit by

this Court on 14.10.2016, the same has not yet been deposited.

Shri Virendra Singh, learned Standing Counsel prays for and is

granted two weeks‟ further time to deposit the cost.





Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

O.A.285 of 2013

Smt. Sunita Devi Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


28.11.2016 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abdul Mateen, Member (J) Hon’ble Lt Gen Gyan Bhushan, Member (A)

Present: Shri V.P. Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Dr. Shailendra

Sharma Atal, learned counsel for the respondents and Shri R Chandra, learned

counsel appearing for the respondent no.6 alongwith Maj Salen Xaxa,

Departmental representative.

The question which crops up for consideration is whether the applicant

Smt. Sunita Devi, who happens to be the mother of the Late Tarun Kumar Yadav,

an Ex Army man, is entitled for family pension, which as per averments made, is

being granted to Smt. Babita Yadav, wife of Late Tarun Kumar Yadav.

The submission of Shri Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant is that

since Smt. Babita Yadav has remarried, as such she is not entitled to the family

pension.

In the rejoinder affidavit, it has specifically been pleaded that after the

death of son of the applicant, Smt. Babita Yadav has married again, but there is

nothing on record to indicate as to whom she has married and what is the address

of that person.

Shri VP Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant prays that he be granted

some time to bring on record the name and address of second husband of Smt.

Babita Yadav within two weeks. Time prayed for is granted.

List this case for hearing on 15.02.2017 before the appropriate Court having

jurisdiction as per roster of that date.

(Lt Gen Gyan Bhushan) (Justice Abdul Mateen) Member (A) Member (J) PKG/

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

T.A. No.84 of 2013

Gurmeet Singh & others Applicants


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


28.11.2016



Present: Shri Bachchan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant



Shri Bachchan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant has not

filed the Bench copy of the TA for the assistance of the Court. Since it

is a transfer application, accordingly he prays for and is granted four

weeks‟ time to file the same.




Member (A) Member (J) RS/

Form No. 4 [See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

M.A. No. 2171 of 2016 with M.A.No.2172

In Re: O.A.No. 37 of 2012

Salil Chandra Jagdev Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


28.11.2016



Present: Shri Asheesh Agnihotri, learned counsel for the

respondents alongwithMaj Salen Xaxa, Departmental representative.

On call of the case, Shri O.P.Kushwaha, Advocate appeared

and states that Shri Virat Anand Singh, learned counsel for the

applicant is out of station; as such he prays that the case be adjourned.




( Lt Gen Gyan Bhushan) (Justice Abdul Mateen)


RS/


ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

O.A. No. 100 of 2011 with M.A.No. 2245 of 2016

Ajay Kumar Yadav Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


28.11.2016



Present: Shri R.Chandra, learned counsel for the applicant and

Shri Bhanu Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the respondents


Copy of objection against the application for condonation of

delay has been served by learned counsel for the respondents upon

Shri R.Chandra, learned counsel for the applicant today in Court itself.

Shri R.Chandra, learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is

granted two weeks‟ time to file replication.





LN/


ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

O.A.No. 61 of 2014

Sukhvir Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


28.11.2016


Hon’ble Lt Gen Gyan Bhushan, Member (A) Present: Dr. Shailendra Sharma Atal, learned counsel for the


On call of the case, Shri O.P.Kushwaha, Advocate holding brief

of Shri Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant appeared and

states that Shri Ashok Kumar is indisposed, as such he has not come to

the Court today.

In pursuance of our order dated 03.10.2016, the official from,

Artillery Records, Nasik Road Camp, Nasik, namely, Capt Ganesh

Patil is present alongwith record. He, on the basis of records, states

that since birth certificate and disability certificate are not on record,

they having not been provided by the applicant, Part-II Order, as

directed by this Court, could not be published.

Accordingly, we direct the applicant to provide birth certificate

as well as disability certificate to the respondents within three weeks

and if the same are supplied, the respondents shall publish Part-II

Order within ten days their receipt.



Capt Ganesh Patil, from, Artillery Records, Nasik Road Camp,

Nasik need not appear again unless specifically called for.


Member (A) Member (J) LN/


ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

O.A. No. 197 of 2016

Chandeshwar Prasad Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


28.11.2016



Present: Shri V.K.Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and



Dr. Shailendra Sharma Atal, learned Standing Counsel

appearing for the respondents prays for and is granted, as a matter of

last opportunity, two weeks and no more time to file counter affidavit.





RS/


ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

T.A. No. 25 of 2016

Chhote Lal Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


28.11.2016



Present: Shri Mohd. Zafar Khan, learned counsel for the


On call of the case, no one appears for the applicant; rather a

person in civil dress claiming himself to be the applicant Chhote Lal

appeared and states that his counsel Shri Hitesh Pachauri has not come

to the Court today due to some mishappening with his car. He prays

for adjournment of the case. Accordingly, the case is adjourned.






ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

O.A. No. 230 of 2016

Akhilesh Kumar Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


28.11.2016



Present: Shri Bhanu Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the


On call of the case, Shri Shailendra Kumar Singh, learned

counsel for the applicant is not present.

Shri Bhanu Pratap Singh, learned Standing Counsel appearing

for the respondents prays for and is granted two weeks‟ time to file

counter affidavit.






ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

O.A. No. 259 of 2016

Rana Pratap Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


28.11.2016



Present: Shri D.K.Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents


On call of the case, Shri P.K.Shukla, Advocate appeared and

states that Shri V.A.Singh, learned counsel for the applicant is out of

station, as such he prays for adjournment of the case.

On the other hand, Shri D.K.Pandey, learned Standing Counsel

appearing for the respondents prays that he be granted four weeks‟

further time to file counter affidavit. Time prayed for is granted.





RS/


ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

T.A.. No. 686 of 2010 with M.A.No. 2160 of 2016

Jagdish Prasad Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


28.11.2016



Present: Shri Rohit Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant

and Shri D.K.Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents alongwith


On call of the case, Shri D.K.Pandey, learned Standing

Counsel appearing for the respondents informs that Shri Mrityunjai

Kumar, Assistant Accounts Officer, PCDA (P), Allahabad, who was

directed to appear before the Court, could not come to the Court today

as he has met with some accident in which he has got fracture in his

hand. He prays for adjournment of the case to some other date to

enable Shri Mrityunjai Kumr to appear before the Court.

Accordingly, the case is adjourned. Let it be listed for hearing

on 22.03.2016 before the appropriate Court having jurisdiction as per

roster of that date. Shri Mrityunjai Kumar, Assistant Accounts

Officer, PCDA (P), Allahabad shall appear before the Court alongwith

the record on the date fixed.



LN/


ORDER SHEET


Cases of Court No. 1 taken up in Court No. 2

EX-A. No. 216 of 2016

(Inre: O.A. No. 193 of 2015)

Chandra Pratap Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


25.11.2016

Hon’ble Mr. Justice D P Singh, Member (J)

Hon’ble Air Marshal Anil Chopra, Member (A)


respondents alongwith Maj Salen Xaxa, Departmental representative.`

As prayed by learned counsel for the respondents, four weeks

further time is allowed to submit compliance report.

List this case for orders on 03.01.2017.

(Air Marshal Anil Chopra) (Justice D P Singh)


PKG/


ORDER SHEET



M.A. No. 36 of 2016 With M.A. No. 2461 of 2016

Radha Devi Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


25.11.2016



Present: Shri VK Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and

Dr Shailendra Sharma Atal, learned counsel for the respondents


Reply to the objection filed by the applicant‟s counsel is taken

on record.





ORDER SHEET




Vidhata Prasad Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


25.11.2016



Present: Shri SG Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and

RKS Chauhan, learned counsel for the respondents alongwith Maj

Salen Xaxa, Departmental representative.

Two weeks‟ further time, as prayed, is granted to learned

counsel for the applicant to file reply to the objection filed by the

respondents against the application for condonation of delay.





ORDER SHEET



M.A. No. 1735 of 2016

Uma Kant Sharma Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


25.11.2016



Present: Mrs Anju Singh, learned counsel for the respondents


Shri KK Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant is reported to

be out of station.





ORDER SHEET



M.A. No. 1885 of 2016 With M.A. No. 2384 & 2571 of 2016


Jagbir Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


25.11.2016



Present: Shri Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the



be out of station.





ORDER SHEET



O.A. No. 85 of 2014

Shyam Neeraj Applicant


Versus

Ministory of Defence Respondents


Notes of the

Registry


25.11.2016



Present: Shri Pankaj Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the

applicant and Shri Amit Jaiswal, learned counsel for the respondents


As prayed by learned counsel for the applicant, list this case for

orders on 09.01.2017.




ORDER SHEET



O.A. No. 164 of 2014

Ram Sunder Prasad Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


25.11.2016



Present: Mrs Deepti P Bajpai, learned counsel for the


Shri M.K.Singh, learned counsel for the applicant is reported to

be out of station.





ORDER SHEET



O.A. No. 275 of 2014

Darshan Kumar Sharma Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


25.11.2016





As prayed by Dr. Shailendra Sharma Atal, learned Standing

Counsel appearing for the respondents, list this case for orders on

08.12.2016.




ORDER SHEET




Mritunjay Yadav Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


25.11.2016



Present: Shri R Chandra, learned counsel for the applicant and



M.A.No. 2081 of 2016

The amendment sought to be incorporated is to the extent of

change in relief clause and seems to be formal in nature. The

respondents has no objection to the amendment as prayed for.

Accordingly, the application is allowed. Let the amendment be

carried out within a week.

List this case for hearing on 01.02.2017.




ORDER SHEET




Kishan Kumar Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


25.11.2016



Present: Shri SC Kushwaha, learned counsel for the applicant

and Shri Kaushik Chattarji, learned counsel for the respondents


List this case for orders on 07.12.2016 to enable the learned

counsel for the respondents to deposit the costs.

The applicant may file rejoinder affidavit in the meantime.




ORDER SHEET



O.A. No. 238 of 2016

Kundan Kumar Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


25.11.2016




Shri Virendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondents


Counter affidavit filed by the respondents is taken on record.

The applicant may file rejoinder affidavit within a week.





ORDER SHEET



O.A. No. 250 of 2016

Surinder Kumar Patyal Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


25.11.2016



Present: Shri Rajat Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the

applicant and Shri AN Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondents


Learned counsel for the respondents prays for and is granted

four weeks‟ further time to file counter affidavit. The applicant shall

thereafter have two weeks‟ time to file rejoinder affidavit.





ORDER SHEET




Rajesh Pandey Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


25.11.2016





Objection filed by the respondents is taken on record. Learned

counsel for the applicant may file reply within two weeks.





ORDER SHEET



T.A. No. 83 of 2013

Uma Shankar Pandey Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


25.11.2016







for and is granted two weeks‟ further time to file affidavit in terms of

the earlier order. The applicant shall thereafter have two weeks‟ time

to file replication.





ORDER SHEET



O.A. No. 281 of 2013

Rajendra Kumar Yadav Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


25.11.2016




Shri Rajiv Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents alongwith Maj


Shri R.Chandra, learned counsel for the applicant prays for and

is granted three weeks‟ time to file rejoinder affidavit. Shri Rajiv

Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents has no objection.





ORDER SHEET



O.A. No. 155 of 2014

Sita Ram Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


25.11.2016




Shri Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondents


Keeping in view the fact that the recovery from pension has

been initiated without any prior notice or providing any opportunity of

hearing, we, in the interest of justice, suspend the recovery of pension

and direct the respondents to continue to pay the full pension of the

applicant during pendency of the present O.A.


A copy of this order shall be given to learned counsel for the

respondents free of costs.




ORDER SHEET




Smt Krishna Kumari Ale Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


25.11.2016





List revised. None appears for the applicant. Accordingly, the

O.A is rejected for non-prosecution.




ORDER SHEET



O.A. No. 175 of 2016

Keshav Datt Mishra Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


25.11.2016



Present: Shri Parijat Belaura, learned counsel for the applicant

and Dr Shailendra Sharma Atal, learned counsel for the respondents


Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The O.A is allowed.

For orders, see our judgment and order of date passed on

separate sheets.




ORDER SHEET



EX-A. No. 216 of 2016

(Inre: O.A. No. 193 of 2015)

Chandra Pratap Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


25.11.2016




respondents alongwith Maj Salen Xaxa, Departmental representative.`

As prayed by learned counsel for the respondents, four weeks

further time is allowed to submit compliance report.




PKG/


ORDER SHEET




Radha Devi Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


25.11.2016






Reply to the objection filed by the applicant‟s counsel is taken

on record.





ORDER SHEET




Vidhata Prasad Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


25.11.2016



Present: Shri SG Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and

RKS Chauhan, learned counsel for the respondents alongwith Maj


Two weeks‟ further time, as prayed, is granted to learned

counsel for the applicant to file reply to the objection filed by the

respondents against the application for condonation of delay.





ORDER SHEET



M.A. No. 1735 of 2016

Uma Kant Sharma Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


25.11.2016



Present: Mrs Anju Singh, learned counsel for the respondents



be out of station.





ORDER SHEET





Jagbir Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


25.11.2016






be out of station.





ORDER SHEET



O.A. No. 85 of 2014

Shyam Neeraj Applicant


Versus

Ministory of Defence Respondents


Notes of the

Registry


25.11.2016






As prayed by learned counsel for the applicant, list this case for

orders on 09.01.2017.




ORDER SHEET



O.A. No. 164 of 2014

Ram Sunder Prasad Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


25.11.2016





Shri M.K.Singh, learned counsel for the applicant is reported to

be out of station.





ORDER SHEET



O.A. No. 275 of 2014

Darshan Kumar Sharma Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


25.11.2016





As prayed by Dr. Shailendra Sharma Atal, learned Standing

Counsel appearing for the respondents, list this case for orders on

08.12.2016.




ORDER SHEET




Mritunjay Yadav Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


25.11.2016






M.A.No. 2081 of 2016

The amendment sought to be incorporated is to the extent of

change in relief clause and seems to be formal in nature. The

respondents has no objection to the amendment as prayed for.

Accordingly, the application is allowed. Let the amendment be

carried out within a week.





ORDER SHEET




Kishan Kumar Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


25.11.2016



Present: Shri SC Kushwaha, learned counsel for the applicant

and Shri Kaushik Chattarji, learned counsel for the respondents


List this case for orders on 07.12.2016 to enable the learned

counsel for the respondents to deposit the costs.

The applicant may file rejoinder affidavit in the meantime.




ORDER SHEET



O.A. No. 238 of 2016

Kundan Kumar Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


25.11.2016




Shri Virendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondents


Counter affidavit filed by the respondents is taken on record.

The applicant may file rejoinder affidavit within a week.





ORDER SHEET



O.A. No. 250 of 2016

Surinder Kumar Patyal Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


25.11.2016



Present: Shri Rajat Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the

applicant and Shri AN Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondents



four weeks‟ further time to file counter affidavit. The applicant shall

thereafter have two weeks‟ time to file rejoinder affidavit.





ORDER SHEET




Rajesh Pandey Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


25.11.2016





Objection filed by the respondents is taken on record. Learned

counsel for the applicant may file reply within two weeks.





ORDER SHEET



T.A. No. 83 of 2013

Uma Shankar Pandey Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


25.11.2016







for and is granted two weeks‟ further time to file affidavit in terms of

the earlier order. The applicant shall thereafter have two weeks‟ time

to file replication.





ORDER SHEET



O.A. No. 281 of 2013

Rajendra Kumar Yadav Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


25.11.2016




Shri Rajiv Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents alongwith Maj



is granted three weeks‟ time to file rejoinder affidavit. Shri Rajiv

Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents has no objection.





ORDER SHEET



O.A. No. 155 of 2014

Sita Ram Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


25.11.2016




Shri Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondents


Keeping in view the fact that the recovery from pension has

been initiated without any prior notice or providing any opportunity of

hearing, we, in the interest of justice, suspend the recovery of pension

and direct the respondents to continue to pay the full pension of the

applicant during pendency of the present O.A.


A copy of this order shall be given to learned counsel for the

respondents free of costs.




ORDER SHEET




Smt Krishna Kumari Ale Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


25.11.2016





List revised. None appears for the applicant. Accordingly, the

O.A is rejected for non-prosecution.



Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

O.A. No. 240 of 2014

Mahendra Singh Applicant


Versus



Registry


24.11.2016



Present : Shri V.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and


Heard learned counsel for the applicant who has preferred this

petition with the prayer that respondents be directed to revise service

pension as provided by 6th

CPC w.e.f. 01.01.1996 in terms of re-

grouping of service trades within stipulated time and to award cost.

Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that respondents had

not considered the claim of the applicant with respect of aforesaid grant

of pension.

There seems to be some substance in the argument made by

learned counsel for the applicant, accordingly we admit the Original

Application.








Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1


Adapa Seshagiri Applicant


Versus



Notes of

the

Registry


24.11.2016





On call of the case, learned counsel for the respondents, on the

basis of instructions, informs the court that in pursuance to judgment

and order dated 16.09.2015 passed in O.A. No. 272 of 2014, necessary

PPO No. D/0139/2016 has been issued on 17.10.2016.

Since PPO has already been issued and judgment under execution

has been implemented, this Execution Application has been become




Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1


Shyamu Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of

the

Registry


24.11.2016




Mohd Zafar Khan, learned counsel for the respondents.

Today, an affidavit has been filed by Shri R.K.P. Pandey, Director

AG PS-4 (2nd

Appeal) tendering his apology for being late in deciding

the 2nd

appeal preferred by the applicant within stipulated time as

directed by this court on 27.08.2015 in O.A. No. 2 of 2015. Apology

tendered by him is accepted.

An affidavit has been filed today in the Court by Director AG PS-

4, Army Headquarters. On page 7 of the affidavit, order dated

16.11.2016 has been passed by Shri Ahibaran Singh, AFA (P) Ministry

of Defence, New Delhi, has been annexed. It states that individual has

preferred second appeal after a gap of 43 years as such case is beyond

reasonable time limit and has rendered his opinion which is contrary to

judgment dated 27.08.2016 issued by this court.

Let a notice be also issued through Registrar this Court to Shri

Ahibaran Singh, AFA (P) Ministry of Defence, New Delhi, to show

cause as to why contempt proceedings not be initiated against him for

deliberately, knowingly delaying to the directions given in this case by

the Court for deciding 2nd

appeal preferred by the applicant. It is

clarified that if the 2nd

appeal is not decided by the date fixed, a heavy

cost will be imposed on AFA (P) Ministry of Defence, New Delhi,

which shall be deducted from his salary.

It has also been informed by director AG PS-4 (2nd

Appeal), that at

present the matter is pending at the level of Joint Secretary, Ex-

servicemen Welfare Department. It is expected that said authority shall

try to dispose of 2nd

appeal of the applicant by the date fixed.



It is clarified that Shri R.K.P. Pandey, Director AG PS-4, who is

present in the Court, need not to appear again before this Court unless

called for.



Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

EX.A. No. 85 of 2016 with M.A. No. 2126 of 2016, M.A. No. 2279 of 2016

Inre T.A. No. 1048 of 2010

Satnam Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of

the

Registry


24.11.2016





respondents.

In compliance of judgment and order dated 22.09.2015 passed in

T.A. No. 1048 of 2010, compliance report has been filed by learned

counsel for the respondents vide M.A. No.2279 of 2016.

Since compliance report has been filed and necessary PPO has

been issued on 16.09.2016, this Execution Application has been become


It is clarified that the cost of Rs. 20,000/- deposited by the

respondents in the Registry, shall be released to the applicant.



Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1


Badri Prasad Sharma Applicant


Versus

First Appellate Committee & Others Respondents


Notes of

the

Registry


24.11.2016




Shri Amit Jaiswal, learned counsel for the respondents.

The cost of Rs. 5000/- has been deposited by the respondents in

the Registry which shall be withdrawn by the applicant.

So far deciding the 1st Appeal of the applicant is concerned, it is

pointed out by the respondents that it is pending before IFA (Pension)

(1st Appeal). As such matter be listed in the month of January.

It is clarified that if 1st Appeal is not decided by the date fixed,

IFA (Pension) (1st Appeal), New Delhi, shall be ready to bear heavy

cost which shall be deducted from his salary.





Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

M.A. No. 986 of 2013

Smt. Meera Devi Applicant


Versus



Registry


24.11.2016



Present : Shri Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and



and no more time to file replication to the objection on application for






Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1


Ravindra Singh Dagar Applicant


Versus



Registry


24.11.2016



Present : Shri K.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and

Shri Ashish Saxena, learned counsel for the respondents.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has received

copy of objection on the application for condonation of delay, field by

learned counsel for the respondents vide M.A. No. 2559 of 2016. He

prays for and is granted two weeks‟ time to file replication for the same.





Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1


Bhagwat Prasad Pal Applicant


Versus



Notes of

the

Registry


24.11.2016



Present : None for the applicant and Shri Ashish Kumar Singh,



nor is there any request to pass over the case.

Accordingly, M. A. No. 1780 of 2016 is dismissed for non

prosecution.



Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1


Smt. Kamla Devi Applicant


Versus



Notes of

the

Registry


24.11.2016



Present : None for the applicant and Mohd Zafar Khan, learned



nor is there any request to pass over the case.

Accordingly, M. A. No. 1892 of 2016 is dismissed for non

prosecution.



Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1


Ram Bahadur Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of

the

Registry


24.11.2016




applicant and Shri Sunil Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents.

Learned counsel for the respondents prays for and is granted two

weeks and no more time to file objection on the application for






Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1




Versus



Notes of

the

Registry


24.11.2016




Shri Sunil Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents.

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted two weeks

further time to make correction in the application for condonation of delay

as ordered by this Court on 17.10.2016.

List this case for orders on 03.02.2017 before the court concerned




Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1


Shankar Datt Upadhyay Applicant


Versus



Notes of

the

Registry


24.11.2016





M.A. No. 2080 of 2016

Supplementary counter affidavit, filed by learned counsel for the

respondents is taken on record. M.A. aforesaid is disposed of accordingly.

Leaned counsel for the applicant may file replication for the same

within six weeks.





Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

O.A. No. 39 of 2014 with M.A. No.2274 of 2015, M.A. No. 1192 of 2016,

M.A. No. 2167 of 2016

Subhash Mishra Applicant


Versus



Notes of

the

Registry


24.11.2016



Present : Shri Dharmesh Sinha, learned counsel for the applicant and

Shri Rajiv Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.

On call of the case, learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is

granted four weeks time to file replication to supplementary affidavit filed

by learned counsel for the respondents.





Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

O.A. No. 219 of 2014

Chandrabhan Singh & another Applicants


Versus



Notes of

the

Registry


24.11.2016





Case called out. Neither the applicant nor his counsel is present nor

is there any request to pass over the case.

Accordingly, O. A. No. 219 of 2014 is dismissed for non

prosecution.




ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1


Sudhir Kumar Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


24.11.2016



Present: Shri D.N.Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and

Shri D.K.Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents alongwith Maj


M.A.No.446 of 2016

This is an application for amendment in the pleadings of the

original application moved by the applicant with a prayer that in

between the word used in the column of respondent no.1 “the Union of

India through its Secretary, the Ministry of Defence, New Delhi” be

added. However, in any case the amendments sought to be

incorporated are common in nature, as such this application is allowed

and objection (M.A.No.898 of 2016) is hereby rejected.

Let necessary amendments be incorporated in the array of

parties.






ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

O.A. No. 247 of 2016

Amar Nath Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


24.11.2016




Shri AK Sahu, learned counsel for the respondents alongwith Maj


In compliance of the order of this Court dated 27.10.2016,

bailable warrant was issued against the respondent no.5 i.e. the Branch

Manager, Punjab National Bank, Haibatpur District Hardoi (U.P.) by

the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hardoi, in pursuance of which, Shri

Sharad Kumar Dixit is present before the Court. He informs that in

pursuance of the PPO of the applicant the necessary payment is to be

cleared by the Chief Manager, (Circle Pramukh), Punjab National

Bank, Regional Office, Pilibhit By-pass Road, Bareilly, for which he

has sent several letters including one dated 12.5.2016, but nothing has

been done and the matter is still pending consideration before the

Chief Manager. Even in paragraph 4.4 of the original application, it

has been mentioned that one Shri A.K.Sahgal, Senior Manager in the

Punjab National Bank at Bareilly had demanded illegal gratification

for clearing of the amount of PPO.

Let notice be issued through the Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Hardoi to the Chief Manager, (Circle Pramukh), Punjab National

Bank, Regional Office, Pilibhit By-pass Road, Bareilly to appear

before this Court on the date fixed alongwith Shri A.K.Sahgal, Senior

Manager of the Branch for the allegations so levelled in paragraph 4.4

of the application and to show cause as to why contempt proceedings

be not initiated against them and why heavy cost be not imposed on

them to be deducted from their salary for their aforesaid misconduct.



Shri Sharad Kumar Dixit, Branch Manager, who is present

before the Court today, need not appear before the Court on the next

date.




ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1


Diwan Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


24.11.2016





Case called out. Shri P.N.Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the

applicant is reported to be unwell.

Shri Amit Jaiswal, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the

respondents prays for and is granted three weeks further time to file

objection against the application for condonation of delay.





LN/


ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

O.A. No. 153 of 2013

Shriram Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


24.11.2016



Present: Lt Col AK Saxena (retd), learned counsel for the

applicant and Ms Amrita Chakraborty, learned counsel for the


As prayed, list this case for hearing on 17.01.2017 before the





ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

O.A. No. 322 of 2015

Mohd Aziz Khan Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


24.11.2016





On call of the case, Shri P.N.Chaturvedi, learned counsel for

the applicant is not present; rather a person in civil dress claiming

himself to be the applicant Mohd. Aziz Khan appeared. He states that

his counsel Shri P.N.Chaturvedi is confined to bed; as such he prays

for adjournment of the case. Accordingly, the case is adjourned.





LN/


ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

O.A. No. 48 of 2016

Pinki Devi Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


24.11.2016



Present: Shri KK Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and

Shri Virendra Singh, learned counsel for the respondents alongwith


Rejoinder affidavit has not been filed as yet. Shri K.K.Mishra,

learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted three weeks

further time to file rejoinder affidavit.





LN/


ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

T.A. No. 4 of 2011

Dinesh Chandra Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


24.11.2016




Shri Amit Jaiswal, learned counsel for the respondents alongwith Maj







ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

T.A. No. 67 of 2012

Khursheeda Beghum Applicant


Versus

Record Officer Respondents


Notes of the

Registry


24.11.2016




Shri DK Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents alongwith Maj







ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

T.A. No. 50 of 2013

GC Agarwal Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


24.11.2016





On call of the case, Shri R.Chandra, Advocate appeared. He

states that Shri Yashpal Singh, learned counsel for the applicant has

not come to the Court today; as such he prays for adjournment of the

case. Accordingly, the case is adjourned.





RS/

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

O.A. No. 346 of 2015

Mahangoo Prasad Vishwakarma Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


23.11.2016



O.A. No. 346 of 2015, Mahangoo Prasad Vishwakarma vs. Union

of India and others is allowed.

For order see our judgment passed on separate sheets.



Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1


Pushpa Devi Pandey W/o Suresh Chand Pandey Applicant


Versus



Registry


23.11.2016



Memo of appearance filed by Shri Ashish Kumar Singh on behalf




Shri Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.

The case is wrongly listed and matter pertains to setting aside of

the order of desertion.


dealing with the matter of desertion.



Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

O.A. No. 263 of 2016

Jagpat Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of

the

Registry


23.11.2016






weeks‟ further time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any,

may be filed by learned counsel for the applicant, within two weeks,

thereafter.





Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

T.A. No. 360 of 2010

Nepal Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of

the

Registry


23.11.2016




Shri Kaushik Chattarji, learned counsel for the respondents.



Registry within a week. Objection, if any, may be filed by learned

counsel for the respondents within two weeks, thereafter.





Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1


Ram Kishore Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


23.11.2016



Present : Mrs Kavita Belaura holding brief of Shri Parijaat Belaura,

learned counsel for the applicant and Dr. Shailendra Sharma Atal,


On call of the case, Mrs Kavita Belaura very fairly states that all

the applicants in the application under execution have received PPO in

pursuance to execution of judgment and order dated 07.05.2012 passed

O.A. No 179 of 2012.

Accordingly, this execution application has become infructuous




Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1




Versus



Registry


23.11.2016




Mohd Zafar Khan, learned counsel for the respondents and Shri RKP

Pandey, Director AG PS – 4, (2nd

Appeal), Integrated Headquarters of

MoD, (Army), New Delhi..



roster of that day.



Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

EX.A. No. 153 of 2016 Inre M.A. No. 156 of 2016

Ramesh Singh Applicant


Versus



Registry


23.11.2016





Case called out. No one appears for the applicant. However, in the

interest of justice, the case is adjourned.





Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1


Dinesh Pal Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of

the

Registry


23.11.2016



Present : Shri Dinesh Pal Singh applicant in person and Shri

Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.

On call of the case, a person in civil dress claiming himself as Shri

Dinesh Pal Singh applicant, appears and states that Shri P.N.

Chaturvedi is suffering from Chikungunia and prays for adjournment of

the case.






Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1




Versus



Notes of

the

Registry


23.11.2016







roster of that day.



Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1


Surendra Singh Sengar Applicant


Versus



Notes of

the

Registry


23.11.2016




Shri Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondents assisted by

Maj Salen Xaxa, Departmental Representative.

In pursuance to order dated 21.09.2016 of this Court, Departmental

Representative, on the basis of instructions, informs that matter with

respect to grant of pension of Hony Nb Sub to the applicant w.e.f.

01.01.2006 is still pending for consideration before M.I.-20, Integrated

Headquarters of MoD (Army), New Delhi.

Let notice be issued to Director M.I.– 20, Integrated Headquarters of

MoD (Army), New Delhi, as to why judgment and order dated 08.01.2016

passed in O.A. No 32 of 2013 for grant of pension of Hony Nb Sub to the

applicant is pending before him. Since the same has not been complied

with by him, why heavy cost not be imposed on him, to be deducted from

his salary and why contempt proceedings under Section 19 of Armed

Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 not be initiated against him for non compliance

of judgment of this Court. On the date fixed, he shall appear in the Court

in person to clarify his position.



It is clarified that if the aforesaid judgment is complied with by the

date fixed, he need not to appear in the Court.



Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1


Faquir Baksh Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of

the

Registry


23.11.2016



Present : Shri Yash Pal Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and

Shri A.K. Sahu, learned counsel for the respondents.

On call of the case, learned counsel for the respondents prays for and

is granted two weeks further time to file counter affidavit.






ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1



Rajiv Tondon Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


23.11.2016






M.A.No.851 of 2016

This is an application for condonation of delay in filing O.A.,

which as per office report is delayed by 29 years 07 months and 29

days. Objection to this application has been filed by the Union of India

vide M.A.No.2070 of 2016.

We have gone through the application for condonation of delay

and the reasons given in the affidavit filed in support of the application

and it comes out from a bare reading of O.A., as well as application

for condonation of delay alongwith the affidavit that this O.A. has

been filed by Ex Sub Lt Rajiv Tandon, wherein the affidavit has been

sworn by his sister Smt. Suman Mehrotra, being pairokar. Since the

allegations so levelled in the application for condonation of delay as

well as the O.A. are to the effect that the applicant Ex Sub Lt Rajiv

Tandon had developed the disease of psychological de motivation and

mental depression, for which he was discharged from service on the

ground of aforesaid ailment on 16th

October 1985. Against the said

action, the applicant preferred an appeal before the Ministry of

Defence by his father Late KN Tandon, but the same was rejected on

17th

February 1986. Subsequently, another appeal was preferred before

his Excellency, Hon‟ble the President of India on 14th

July 1986,

which, as per averment in paragraph 4.12 of the petition, is still

pending.

Apart from it, it has also been pleaded that during the said

period since the parents of Ex Sub Lt Rajiv Tandon had expired due to

agony of his son and mental condition of Ex Sub Lt Rajiv Tandon

deteriorated, as such he could not approach the Court in time.

It has been argued by Shri KK Mishra, learned counsel for the

applicant that since the matter relates to grant of disability pension, it

will not effect the limitation as since it is a continuous cause of action

and in the circumstances, mentioned above, the delay is to be

condoned.

We find substance in the arguments of Shri KK Mishra, learned

counsel for the applicant. Accordingly, M.A.No.851 of 2016 is

allowed and the delay in filing the OA is hereby condoned and the

objection (M.A.2070 of 2016) is hereby rejected.

Let the O.A. be registered.

Learned counsel for the respondents is directed to file counter

affidavit within six weeks. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within two

weeks thereafter.

List this case for admission on 15.03.2017 before the





ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

M.A. No. 1067 of 2016


Pratap Singh Negi Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


23.11.2016



Present: Shri Ashish Saxena, learned counsel for the


On call of the case, none appears for the applicant. However,

in the interest of justice, the case is adjourned.

List this case again for orders on 16.03.2017 before the





ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1



Tejbir Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


23.11.2016




Shri Mohd Zafar Khan, learned counsel for the respondents alongwith



is granted ten days‟ further time to file replication.






ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

M.A. No. 2026 of 2016 With M.A. 2325 & 2550 of 2016


Brijendra Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


23.11.2016




Shri Sunil Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents alongwith Maj


M.A.No.2026 of 2016


O.A., wherein prayer has been made by the applicant to set aside the

order dated 08.11.2012 and the findings arrived at by the Release

Medical Board and the respondents be directed to grant disability

pension to the applicant.

As per office report, there is a delay of 03 years 03 months and

28 days of filing the OA.

The reasons given in the affidavit filed in support of the

application for condonation of delay seems to be genuine.

Accordingly, M.A.No.2026 of 2016 is allowed and the delay in

filing the OA is hereby condoned and the objection (M.A.2325 of

2016) is hereby rejected.


Heard Shri R Chandra, learned counsel for the applicant on this

O.A,, wherein prayer has been made by the applicant to set aside the



pension to the applicant with effect from 1st of July 2012.

It has been conceded by Shri R. Chandra, learned counsel for

the applicant that being aggrieved by the order dated 08.11.2012, the

applicant has already preferred a second appeal before the authorities

concerned, which is still pending for decision, as pleaded in paragraph

4.4 of the O.A.

It has been accepted by Shri Sunil Sharma, learned Standing

Counsel that the second appeal preferred by the applicant has not yet

been decided.

Since the second appeal preferred by the applicant is still

pending for decision before the authorities concerned, the applicant

cannot be permitted to sail on two boats simultaneously. Suffice it to

say that the ends of justice would be served if a direction is issued to

the authorities concerned to decide the second appeal within a

reasonable time.

Accordingly, with the consent of the learned counsel for the

parties, we dispose of this Original Application with the direction to

the authorities concerned to decide the second appeal by a speaking

and reasoned order within a period of three months from the date of

receipt of a certified copy of this order, keeping in view the law laid

down by the Apex Court in the cases Dharamvir Singh vs. Union of

India & others reported in 2013 (7 SCC 2013) and Sukhvinder

Singh vs. Union of India reported in 2014 STPL (WEB) 468 SC.



PKG/


ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

O.A. No. 267 of 2013

Kitab Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


23.11.2016






Shri R.K.Singh, Advocate, who is representing one of the

respondents in this case, is reported to be unwell and hospitalised.

Prayer has been made on his behalf for adjournment of the case.







ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1


Smt Chanchala Devi Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


23.11.2016












ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

O.A. No. 266 of 2015 With M.A. No. 1968 & 2377 of 2016

Hari Bahadur Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


23.11.2016



Present: Shri VP Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and

Shri Asheesh Agnihotri, learned counsel for the respondents


Shri V.P.Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant states that he

could not file replication within the time allowed by this Court. He

prays for and is granted ten days‟ further time to file the same.






ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1


Abhay Kumar Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


23.11.2016



Present: Shri DS Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and


Wg Cdr Sardul Singh, Departmental representative.

Heard Shri DS Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and

Shri Namit Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents on this O.A.

which has been preferred with a prayer to quash the rejection order

dated 23.12.2011 annexed as Annexure 1 to the O.A. and also for a

direction to the respondents to grant disability pension with effect

from the date of discharge i.e. 21.10.2011 alongwith Board Banding to

50% and its arrears and interest thereon @ 18% per annum.

Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged and it

comes out from it that being aggrieved by the order of denial of grant

of disability pension, the applicant had already preferred First Appeal

before the authorities concerned which was dismissed on 17th

March

2016.

It is fairly conceded by Shri DS Tiwari, learned counsel for the

applicant that the applicant has an efficacious and alternative remedy

of filing a second appeal, which has yet not been preferred. Shri

Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant states if permission is granted

by the Court, the same will be filed. There is no need of granting such

permission to prefer a second appeal since it is provided in the Act

itself.

Accordingly, we dispose of O.A. No. 72 of 2016 with a liberty

to the applicant to prefer a second appeal if so advised before the

appropriate authorities within a period of three weeks from today and

the same if filed shall be entertained and decided by the authorities

concerned within a further period of three months thereafter with a

detailed and reasoned order, in accordance with law, keeping in view

the law laid down by the Apex Court in the cases Dharamvir Singh

vs. Union of India & others reported in 2013 (7 SCC 2013) and

Sukhvinder Singh vs. Union of India reported in 2014 STPL (WEB)

468 SC.




ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1


Sanjeev Chakraborty Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


23.11.2016




applicant and Shri Yogesh Kesarwani, learned counsel for the

respondents alongwith Wg Cdr Sardul Singh, Departmental

representative.

Shri Pankaj Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant

prays for and is granted three weeks further time to file the rejoinder

affidavit.






ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

O.A. No. 252 of 2016

Nar Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


23.11.2016



Present: Shri AK Sahu, learned counsel for the respondents


On call of the case, none appears for the applicant.

Shri A.K.Sahu, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the

respondents prays for and is granted three weeks‟ time to file counter

affidavit.






ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

T.A. No. 51 of 2016

Harendra Paswan Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


23.11.2016





Shri K.K.S.Bisht, learned counsel for the applicant prays for

three weeks‟ further time to file rejoinder affidavit.






ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

M.A. No. 1820 of 2016

(Inre: T.A. No. 12 of 2014)

Somant Gupta Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


23.11.2016



Present: Shri Abhishek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant

and Shri Namit Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents


Cost imposed by this Court has not been deposited by learned

counsel for the applicant. He prays for and is granted a week‟s time

for the purpose.






ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

O.A. No. 131 of 2016

Yogveer Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


23.11.2016




Shri Yogesh Kesarwani, learned counsel for the respondents


Shri Yogesh Kesarwani, learned Standing Counsel appearing

for the respondents admits that the applicant is being granted disability

pension, but so far as service pension is concerned, the same has not

been granted. It has been admitted in para 19 of the counter affidavit

that the case of the applicant for grant of service pension with effect

from 1.1.1996 is being considered by the authorities concerned. Shri

Kesarwani prays for and is granted two weeks‟ time to file status

report.






ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

O.A. No. 249 of 2016

Shamsher Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


23.11.2016






Counter and rejoinder affidavits have not been filed as yet.

Wrongly listed for hearing.


four week‟s further time to file counter affidavit. If counter affidavit

is filed, the applicant shall thereafter have two weeks‟ time to file

rejoinder affidavit.





Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

O.A. No. 251 of 2016

Smt. Kanta Devi Applicant


Versus



Registry


22.11.2016




and Shri Asheesh Agnihotri, learned counsel for the respondents.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant on the admission of this

Original Application which has been preferred by wife of late Hony Nb

Sub Prem Ballabh Joshi for grant of revised pension from 01.01.2006 to

28.04.2014. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that her

husband late Prem Ballabh Joshi was Hony Nb Sub and thus after his

death, she is entitled to the benefit accrued to her husband as Hony Nb

Sub for the aforesaid period. There seems to be substance in the

argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.

Accordingly, we admit the Original Application.








Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

O.A. No. 262 of 2016

R.S. Gahlot Applicant


Versus



Notes of

the

Registry


22.11.2016



Present : Shri Anand Sharan, learned counsel for the applicant and


Heard learned counsel for the parties. The matter pertains to

rounding off of disability pension in view of the judgment of Hon‟ble

The Apex Court in the case of Union of India and Ors vs Ram Avtar

& ors Civil Appeal No 418 of 2012 decided on 10th

December 2014.

The applicant has claimed disability pension and has also stressed that

his pension which has been approved @ 20% should be rounded of to

50% w.e.f. 01.07.2006. It seems that the case of the applicant is covered

by the judgment of Hon‟ble The Apex Court, therefore we admit this

Original Application.



filed by learned counsel for the applicant, within two weeks, thereafter.





Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1


Sabhajeet Dubey Applicant


Versus



Notes of

the

Registry


22.11.2016











Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1




Versus



Notes of the

Registry


22.11.2016







roster of that day.



Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1


Vijay Shankar Yadav Applicant


Versus



Registry


22.11.2016



Present : None for the applicant and Shri G.S. Sikarwar, learned








Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1


Smt. Soni Sharma Applicant


Versus



Registry


22.11.2016











Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1


Sudhir Kumar Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of

the

Registry


22.11.2016



Present : Shri Manish Soni holding brief of Shri Rudra Mani

Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Namit Sharma,


M.A. No. 2513 of 2016

The applicant has filed this affidavit claiming it to be better

affidavit in support of application for condonation of delay but the

averments made in the affidavit are not understandable.

Accordingly, this application is rejected with liberty granted to the

applicant to file another better affidavit, if he so desires.





Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

M.A. No. 1482 of 2016 with M.A. No. 1483 of 2016 Inre T.A. No. 894 of 2010



Versus



Notes of

the

Registry


22.11.2016





As prayed, list this case for orders on 07.03.2017 before court

concerned having jurisdiction as per roster of that day.



Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1


Gajender Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of

the

Registry


22.11.2016



Present : Shri K.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Dr.

Shesh Narain Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.


objection on application for condonation of delay is ready and he will file

the same in the Registry within a week.





Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1


Rohit Kumar Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of

the

Registry


22.11.2016



Present : Shri Pushp Raj Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and

Shri Virendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.


weeks and no more time to file objection on application for condonation

of delay.





Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1


Smt. Munni Devi Applicant


Versus



Notes of

the

Registry


22.11.2016



Present : None for the applicant and Shri D.K. Pandey, learned


Case called out. Neither applicant is present nor receipt of cost

imposed for restoration of the case has been filed by learned counsel for

the applicant. However, in the interest of justice, the case is adjourned.





Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1


Satendra Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of

the

Registry


22.11.2016



Present : Shri Jai Prakash Singh, holding brief of Shri D.K. Tripathi,

learned counsel for the applicant and Shri D.K. Pandey, learned counsel


On call of the case, Shri Jai Prakash Singh appears and states that

Shri D.K. Tripathi has not come to the Court today being busy in High

Court and prays for adjournment of the case.






Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1


Warrant Officer Shashi Kant Chaturvedi Applicant


Versus



Notes of

the

Registry


22.11.2016





On call of the case, a person in civil dress claiming himself Warrant

Officer Shashi Kant Chaturvedi appears and states that Shri P.N.


the case.






Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

O.A. No. 249 of 2015

J.C. Pandey Applicant


Versus



Notes of

the

Registry


22.11.2016



Present : Shri Ved Prakash Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant


From perusal of record, it transpires that counter and rejoinder

affidavits have been exchanged and matter relates to grant of pensionary

benefits.

Accordingly, list this case for hearing on 14.03.2017 before the court





ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1


Lt Col Ram Raj Singh (Retd) Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


22.11.2016




alongwithMaj Salen Xaxa, Departmental representative.

On call of the case, the Bench Secretary informs the Court that

Shri Y.R.Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant has moved an

application for adjournment of the case. Accordingly, the case is

adjourned.





LN/


ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1


Lt Col (Retd.) P.S.Tripathi Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


22.11.2016








adjourned.





LN/


ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

T.A. No. 26 of 2013



Versus



Notes of the

Registry


22.11.2016





Case called out. No one appears for the applicant.

This petition was received after transfer from Hon‟ble

Allahabad High Court and was registered as T.A.No. 26 of 2013 in

this Tribunal. Notice was issued to Smt. Sunita Devi, wife of late

Rajendra Singh, but the same has not been received back served or

unserved. As per office report dated 21.11.2016, thirty days have

elapsed from the date of issue of notice, hence as per AFT (Practice)

Rules, 2009, service of notice is deemed to be sufficient. More so,

applicant Rajendra Singh is said to be dead. Accordingly, this T.A

stands abated.

Consign to records.



LN/


ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

M.A. No. 1220 of 2016


Jitendra Singh Pal Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


22.11.2016



Present: Shri Virendra Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the

applicant and Shri Asheesh Agnihotri, learned counsel for the


List all the pending applications for orders on 14.03.2017

before the appropriate Court having jurisdiction as per roster of that

date.



LN/


ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

O.A. No. 460 of 2012

K Kumaresan Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


22.11.2016



Present: Dr Chet Narain Singh, learned counsel for the


On call of the case, no one appears for the applicant. We have

been informed by the Bench Secretary that Shri P.N.Chaturvedi,

learned counsel for the applicant is suffering from Chikangunya and is

hospitalised. Accordingly, the case is adjourned.






ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

O.A. No. 261 of 2014

Lakshmi Narayain Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


22.11.2016





representative.


person in civil dress claiming himself to be the applicant Lakshmi

Narayain Singh appeared. He states that his counsel Shri S.K.Pandey

has not come to the Court being unwell and prays that the case be

adjourned. Accordingly, the case is adjourned.






ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

O.A. No. 78 of 2016

Shiv Kumar Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


22.11.2016



Present: Shri SC Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and

Shri Amit Jaiswal, learned counsel for the respondents alongwith Wg

Cdr Sardul Singh, Departmental representative.

Case called out. No one appears for the applicant nor is there

any request to adjourn or pass over the case.

Accordingly, O.A.No. 78 of 2016 is dismissed for non-

prosecution.



LN/


ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

O.A. No. 159 of 2016

Raj Kumar Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


22.11.2016



Present: Shri Shyam Singh, learned counsel for the respondents


On call of the case, no one appears for the applicant, rather

Shri VP Pandey, holding brief of Shri Nishant Kumar, learned counsel

for the applicant states that Shri Nishant Kumar, learned counsel has

not come to the Court today and has requested to adjourn the case.






PKG/


ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

T.A. No. 178 of 2009 With M.A. No. 161, 1536 & 2226 of 2016

Sri Ram Pandey Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


22.11.2016



Present: Shri Yashpal Singh, learned counsel for the applicant


M.A.No.2226 of 2016

List this case for orders on application for condonation of delay

as well as admission of this T.A.

When the case is next listed, the name of Shri Yashpal Singh be

shown as counsel for the applicant.




Member (A) Member (J) PKG//

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

O.A. No. 346 of 2015

Mahangoo Prasad Vishwakarma Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


23.11.2016



O.A. No. 346 of 2015, Mahangoo Prasad Vishwakarma vs. Union

of India and others is allowed.

For order see our judgment passed on separate sheets.



Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1


Pushpa Devi Pandey W/o Suresh Chand Pandey Applicant


Versus



Registry


23.11.2016



Memo of appearance filed by Shri Ashish Kumar Singh on behalf




Shri Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.

The case is wrongly listed and matter pertains to setting aside of

the order of desertion.


dealing with the matter of desertion.



Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

O.A. No. 263 of 2016

Jagpat Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of

the

Registry


23.11.2016






weeks‟ further time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any,

may be filed by learned counsel for the applicant, within two weeks,

thereafter.





Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

T.A. No. 360 of 2010

Nepal Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of

the

Registry


23.11.2016




Shri Kaushik Chattarji, learned counsel for the respondents.



Registry within a week. Objection, if any, may be filed by learned

counsel for the respondents within two weeks, thereafter.





Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1


Ram Kishore Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


23.11.2016



Present : Mrs Kavita Belaura holding brief of Shri Parijaat Belaura,

learned counsel for the applicant and Dr. Shailendra Sharma Atal,


On call of the case, Mrs Kavita Belaura very fairly states that all

the applicants in the application under execution have received PPO in

pursuance to execution of judgment and order dated 07.05.2012 passed

O.A. No 179 of 2012.

Accordingly, this execution application has become infructuous




Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1




Versus



Registry


23.11.2016




Mohd Zafar Khan, learned counsel for the respondents and Shri RKP

Pandey, Director AG PS – 4, (2nd

Appeal), Integrated Headquarters of

MoD, (Army), New Delhi..



roster of that day.



Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

EX.A. No. 153 of 2016 Inre M.A. No. 156 of 2016

Ramesh Singh Applicant


Versus



Registry


23.11.2016











Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1


Dinesh Pal Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of

the

Registry


23.11.2016



Present : Shri Dinesh Pal Singh applicant in person and Shri

Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.

On call of the case, a person in civil dress claiming himself as Shri

Dinesh Pal Singh applicant, appears and states that Shri P.N.


the case.






Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1




Versus



Notes of

the

Registry


23.11.2016







roster of that day.



Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1


Surendra Singh Sengar Applicant


Versus



Notes of

the

Registry


23.11.2016




Shri Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondents assisted by

Maj Salen Xaxa, Departmental Representative.

In pursuance to order dated 21.09.2016 of this Court, Departmental

Representative, on the basis of instructions, informs that matter with

respect to grant of pension of Hony Nb Sub to the applicant w.e.f.

01.01.2006 is still pending for consideration before M.I.-20, Integrated

Headquarters of MoD (Army), New Delhi.

Let notice be issued to Director M.I.– 20, Integrated Headquarters of

MoD (Army), New Delhi, as to why judgment and order dated 08.01.2016

passed in O.A. No 32 of 2013 for grant of pension of Hony Nb Sub to the

applicant is pending before him. Since the same has not been complied

with by him, why heavy cost not be imposed on him, to be deducted from

his salary and why contempt proceedings under Section 19 of Armed

Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 not be initiated against him for non compliance

of judgment of this Court. On the date fixed, he shall appear in the Court

in person to clarify his position.



It is clarified that if the aforesaid judgment is complied with by the

date fixed, he need not to appear in the Court.



Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1


Faquir Baksh Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of

the

Registry


23.11.2016



Present : Shri Yash Pal Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and

Shri A.K. Sahu, learned counsel for the respondents.

On call of the case, learned counsel for the respondents prays for and

is granted two weeks further time to file counter affidavit.






ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1



Rajiv Tondon Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


23.11.2016






M.A.No.851 of 2016

This is an application for condonation of delay in filing O.A.,

which as per office report is delayed by 29 years 07 months and 29

days. Objection to this application has been filed by the Union of India

vide M.A.No.2070 of 2016.

We have gone through the application for condonation of delay

and the reasons given in the affidavit filed in support of the application

and it comes out from a bare reading of O.A., as well as application

for condonation of delay alongwith the affidavit that this O.A. has

been filed by Ex Sub Lt Rajiv Tandon, wherein the affidavit has been

sworn by his sister Smt. Suman Mehrotra, being pairokar. Since the

allegations so levelled in the application for condonation of delay as

well as the O.A. are to the effect that the applicant Ex Sub Lt Rajiv

Tandon had developed the disease of psychological de motivation and

mental depression, for which he was discharged from service on the

ground of aforesaid ailment on 16th

October 1985. Against the said

action, the applicant preferred an appeal before the Ministry of

Defence by his father Late KN Tandon, but the same was rejected on

17th

February 1986. Subsequently, another appeal was preferred before

his Excellency, Hon‟ble the President of India on 14th

July 1986,

which, as per averment in paragraph 4.12 of the petition, is still

pending.

Apart from it, it has also been pleaded that during the said

period since the parents of Ex Sub Lt Rajiv Tandon had expired due to

agony of his son and mental condition of Ex Sub Lt Rajiv Tandon

deteriorated, as such he could not approach the Court in time.

It has been argued by Shri KK Mishra, learned counsel for the

applicant that since the matter relates to grant of disability pension, it

will not effect the limitation as since it is a continuous cause of action

and in the circumstances, mentioned above, the delay is to be

condoned.

We find substance in the arguments of Shri KK Mishra, learned

counsel for the applicant. Accordingly, M.A.No.851 of 2016 is

allowed and the delay in filing the OA is hereby condoned and the

objection (M.A.2070 of 2016) is hereby rejected.


Learned counsel for the respondents is directed to file counter

affidavit within six weeks. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within two

weeks thereafter.






ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

M.A. No. 1067 of 2016


Pratap Singh Negi Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


23.11.2016



Present: Shri Ashish Saxena, learned counsel for the









ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1



Tejbir Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


23.11.2016




Shri Mohd Zafar Khan, learned counsel for the respondents alongwith



is granted ten days‟ further time to file replication.






ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

M.A. No. 2026 of 2016 With M.A. 2325 & 2550 of 2016


Brijendra Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


23.11.2016




Shri Sunil Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents alongwith Maj


M.A.No.2026 of 2016


O.A., wherein prayer has been made by the applicant to set aside the



pension to the applicant.

As per office report, there is a delay of 03 years 03 months and

28 days of filing the OA.

The reasons given in the affidavit filed in support of the

application for condonation of delay seems to be genuine.

Accordingly, M.A.No.2026 of 2016 is allowed and the delay in

filing the OA is hereby condoned and the objection (M.A.2325 of

2016) is hereby rejected.


Heard Shri R Chandra, learned counsel for the applicant on this

O.A,, wherein prayer has been made by the applicant to set aside the



pension to the applicant with effect from 1st of July 2012.

It has been conceded by Shri R. Chandra, learned counsel for

the applicant that being aggrieved by the order dated 08.11.2012, the

applicant has already preferred a second appeal before the authorities

concerned, which is still pending for decision, as pleaded in paragraph

4.4 of the O.A.

It has been accepted by Shri Sunil Sharma, learned Standing

Counsel that the second appeal preferred by the applicant has not yet

been decided.

Since the second appeal preferred by the applicant is still

pending for decision before the authorities concerned, the applicant

cannot be permitted to sail on two boats simultaneously. Suffice it to

say that the ends of justice would be served if a direction is issued to

the authorities concerned to decide the second appeal within a

reasonable time.

Accordingly, with the consent of the learned counsel for the

parties, we dispose of this Original Application with the direction to

the authorities concerned to decide the second appeal by a speaking

and reasoned order within a period of three months from the date of

receipt of a certified copy of this order, keeping in view the law laid

down by the Apex Court in the cases Dharamvir Singh vs. Union of

India & others reported in 2013 (7 SCC 2013) and Sukhvinder

Singh vs. Union of India reported in 2014 STPL (WEB) 468 SC.



PKG/


ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1

O.A. No. 267 of 2013

Kitab Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


23.11.2016






Shri R.K.Singh, Advocate, who is representing one of the

respondents in this case, is reported to be unwell and hospitalised.

Prayer has been made on his behalf for adjournment of the case.







ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1


Smt Chanchala Devi Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


23.11.2016












ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1


Hari Bahadur Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


23.11.2016




Shri Asheesh Agnihotri, learned counsel for the respondents


Shri V.P.Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant states that he

could not file replication within the time allowed by this Court. He

prays for and is granted ten days‟ further time to file the same.






ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1


Abhay Kumar Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


23.11.2016





Wg Cdr Sardul Singh, Departmental representative.

Heard Shri DS Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and

Shri Namit Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents on this O.A.

which has been preferred with a prayer to quash the rejection order

dated 23.12.2011 annexed as Annexure 1 to the O.A. and also for a

direction to the respondents to grant disability pension with effect

from the date of discharge i.e. 21.10.2011 alongwith Board Banding to

50% and its arrears and interest thereon @ 18% per annum.

Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged and it

comes out from it that being aggrieved by the order of denial of grant

of disability pension, the applicant had already preferred First Appeal

before the authorities concerned which was dismissed on 17th

March

2016.

It is fairly conceded by Shri DS Tiwari, learned counsel for the

applicant that the applicant has an efficacious and alternative remedy

of filing a second appeal, which has yet not been preferred. Shri

Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant states if permission is granted

by the Court, the same will be filed. There is no need of granting such

permission to prefer a second appeal since it is provided in the Act

itself.

Accordingly, we dispose of O.A. No. 72 of 2016 with a liberty

to the applicant to prefer a second appeal if so advised before the

appropriate authorities within a period of three weeks from today and

the same if filed shall be entertained and decided by the authorities

concerned within a further period of three months thereafter with a

detailed and reasoned order, in accordance with law, keeping in view

the law laid down by the Apex Court in the cases Dharamvir Singh

vs. Union of India & others reported in 2013 (7 SCC 2013) and

Sukhvinder Singh vs. Union of India reported in 2014 STPL (WEB)

468 SC.




ORDER SHEET


Court No. 1


Sanjeev Chakraborty Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


23.11.2016




applicant and Shri Yogesh Kesarwani, learned counsel for the


representative.

Shri Pankaj Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant

prays for and is granted three weeks further time to file the rejoinder

affidavit.



